Re: Disabled woman fined for permit slip-up: DISGUSTING

Martin Dann

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> DISGUSTING.

Yes it is.

> A South Lakeland council parking warden was soaked with two buckets of
> water recently when he put a ticket on a fishmonger's van while it was
> being loaded outside a store in Kendal town centre.

So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.

Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html

I dare you to defend that.

JNugent

Martin Dann wrote:
>
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> DISGUSTING.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> A South Lakeland council parking warden was soaked with two buckets of
>> water recently when he put a ticket on a fishmonger's van while it was
>> being loaded outside a store in Kendal town centre.
>
> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>
> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html
>
> I dare you to defend that.

"No charge will be brought against the driver as no driving offence was
committed."

What's to defend?

Simon D

on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>
>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>
>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html
>>
>> I dare you to defend that.
>
> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence was
> committed."
>
> What's to defend?

The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

--
Simon

Ian Smith

On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:40:19 +0100, Simon D <simondaw@msn.invalid> wrote:
> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
> >
> > "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> > offence was committed."
> > What's to defend?
>
> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

It's a rather odd quote, implying as it does that no laws other than
driving laws apply to a driver. I suppose, drivers have so much
difficulty obeying the traffic laws that the assumption is they have
no chance of obeying any other laws - if you can't manage a simple
think like a speed limit, how are you going to comprehend the laws
relating to, say, fraud or tax evasion?

Or, to respond to the question - the committing of public order
offences.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JNugent

Simon D wrote:
> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>>
>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>
>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html
>>>
>>> I dare you to defend that.
>>
>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence
>> was committed."
>>
>> What's to defend?
>
> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

The passenger would have to be identified first.

If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in mind
that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?

JNugent

Ian Smith wrote:

> Simon D <simondaw@msn.invalid> wrote:
>> JNugent supposed :

>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>> offence was committed."
>>> What's to defend?

>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

> It's a rather odd quote, implying as it does that no laws other than
> driving laws apply to a driver. I suppose, drivers have so much
> difficulty obeying the traffic laws that the assumption is they have
> no chance of obeying any other laws - if you can't manage a simple
> think like a speed limit, how are you going to comprehend the laws
> relating to, say, fraud or tax evasion?

> Or, to respond to the question - the committing of public order
> offences.

But there is no suggestion that the driver (the only person in the
vehicle who can be forcibly identified - and that only for certain sorts
of motoring "offences") has committed any "public order offences".

Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be
forcibly identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's
mate if the keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why
should it be?

What a storm in a teacup.

Every adolescent male does something as "bad" as that - if they're
normal. The incident quoted seems particularly harmless and best-forgotten.

Simon D

JNugent formulated on Monday :
> Simon D wrote:
>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>
>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>
>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I dare you to defend that.
>>>
>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence was
>>> committed."
>>>
>>> What's to defend?
>>
>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>
> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>
> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in mind that
> there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?

If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my
passenger seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)

You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
course...

--
Simon

JNugent

Simon D wrote:

> JNugent formulated on Monday :
>> Simon D wrote:
>>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>>> Martin Dann wrote:

>>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html

>>>>> I dare you to defend that.

>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>> offence was committed."
>>>> What's to defend?

>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

>> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in
>> mind that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?

> If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my
> passenger seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)

How would you know, before the event (I discount the possibility of your
not having any friends)?

> You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
> prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
> committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
> course...

A prank.

So what?

Are *you* "offended" by it?

I'm certainly not.

And assuming you don't think it's the most shocking thing that's
happened in the UK over the last few weeks, what makes you think that
anyone else - with a modicum of common sense, that is - is "offended" by it?

Simon D

JNugent brought next idea :
> Simon D wrote:
>
>> JNugent formulated on Monday :
>>> Simon D wrote:
>>>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>
>>>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html
>
>>>>>> I dare you to defend that.
>
>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence
>>>>> was committed."
>>>>> What's to defend?
>
>>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>
>>> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>>> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in mind
>>> that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?
>
>> If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my passenger
>> seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)
>
> How would you know, before the event (I discount the possibility of your not
> having any friends)?

It's called character judgement - you assess a person's character by
his actions. Many are probably judging me in a similar way at this
very minute for replying to a troll.

>> You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
>> prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
>> committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
>> course...
>
> A prank.
>
> So what?
>
> Are *you* "offended" by it?
>
> I'm certainly not.
>
> And assuming you don't think it's the most shocking thing that's happened in
> the UK over the last few weeks, what makes you think that anyone else - with
> a modicum of common sense, that is - is "offended" by it?

I repeat - you asked "What's to defend?" I've pointed out that an
offence (or possibly two) was being committed. Not heinous, no, but
I've answered your question.

--
Simon

JNugent

Simon D wrote:
> JNugent brought next idea :
>> Simon D wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent formulated on Monday :
>>>> Simon D wrote:
>>>>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>>>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1314694,00.html
>>
>>>>>>> I dare you to defend that.
>>
>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>>>> offence was committed."
>>>>>> What's to defend?
>>
>>>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>>
>>>> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>>>> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in
>>>> mind that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?
>>
>>> If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my
>>> passenger seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)
>>
>> How would you know, before the event (I discount the possibility of
>> your not having any friends)?
>
> It's called character judgement - you assess a person's character by
> his actions. Many are probably judging me in a similar way at this very
> minute for replying to a troll.

There's nothing remotely troll-like in asking what people are talking about.

I know some in here like to strike certain public poses and attitudes
almost as a knee-jerk, but being automatically against anyone travelling
as a passenger in a car is either going a bit too far or a symptom of
something a bit deeper than I'd suspected.

>>> You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
>>> prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
>>> committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
>>> course...

>> A prank.
>> So what?
>> Are *you* "offended" by it?
>> I'm certainly not.
>> And assuming you don't think it's the most shocking thing that's
>> happened in the UK over the last few weeks, what makes you think that
>> anyone else - with a modicum of common sense, that is - is "offended"
>> by it?

> I repeat - you asked "What's to defend?" I've pointed out that an
> offence (or possibly two) was being committed. Not heinous, no, but I've
> answered your question.

It's only an "offence" is someone (someone reasonable, that is) is
justifiably and credibly shocked and offended.

There isn't any evidence that anyone was or is. Or if there is,it hasn't
been produced here.

So what's to defend?

JNugent

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:25:22 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> Simon D <simondaw@msn.invalid> wrote:
>>>> JNugent supposed :
>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>>> offence was committed."
>>>>> What's to defend?
>>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>>> Or, to respond to the question - the committing of public order
>>> offences.
>> But there is no suggestion that the driver (the only person in the
>> vehicle who can be forcibly identified - and that only for certain sorts
>> of motoring "offences") has committed any "public order offences".
>
> Correct. No-one has suggested that. Only you have chosen to latch
> onto the assumption that it's only the driver's behaviour that is
> suitable for discussion. I have no idea why you have decided that,
> but it is readily apparent that everyone (yourself included) would be
> happier if you confined yourself to arguing with yourself.
>
>> Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be
>> forcibly identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's
>> mate if the keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why
>> should it be?
>>
>> What a storm in a teacup.
>>
>> Every adolescent male does something as "bad" as that - if they're
>> normal. The incident quoted seems particularly harmless and best-forgotten.
>
> Two further observations:
>
> 1: JNugent has adopted one of his favourite evasions here - changing
> the topic. First, he suggested (implicitly, admittedly) that there
> was nothing to be defensive about. However, when this was challenged
> and shown to be a silly comment, he changes his observations to be
> relating to what stands a reasonable chance of being successfully
> prosecuted.

"Be defensive"?

Come off it - only the person "charged" with an "offence" has reason to
"be defensive".

And how is remarking that a charge cannot be brought (except in rather
unlikely circumstances) "silly"?

It isn't even clear that the passenger in that vehicle was committing an
"offence" at all. In order for it to be so, some third party would have
to be *credibly* shocked and offended (geuninely rather then
professionally), and I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone
relevant who was/is/will be shocked and offended. So no real evidence of
any offence having been committed.

But apparently, pointing out that obvious truth is a "silly comment" in
your eyes.

> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.

I think I said that, rather than implying it.

> Then
> he felt the need to defend the actions - "Every adolescent male does
> something as "bad" as that".

That is not a defence. It is a setting in context.

I see far worse things (which *are* offences) on the roads every working
day. So do you. But most of them don't involve bare backsides so perhaps
don't grab your attention as much.

> Thus demonstrating that he recognises
> something that needs defending.

Wrong yet again (I can see a pattern developing).

I am pointing out that only the most odd of people would regard that
little stunt as so "offensive" that is was a criminal "offence",
meaning, therefore, that there is no defence necessary.

Howver, seeing what the prank consisted of, it is easy to see that the
tabloid press and its readers would express "concern" about it. Anything
to get a naked bottom in print and on the screen and to invite one's
friends to snigger at it.

> So why the implication that nothing needed defending?

You've got it at last.

Nothing needs defending.

Ian Smith

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:01:32 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:

> >>>> JNugent supposed :
> >>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>>>> offence was committed."
> >>>>> What's to defend?
>
> > 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
>
> I think I said that, rather than implying it.

You think wrong.

The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
article and said "What's to defend?".

That is not a statement that there was nothing that needed defending.
In the context, and recognising your predilection for disagreeing with
anything, it is most easily read as indicating (implying) that you
thought nothing needed defending, but it is not the clear statement
you now pretend it was.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JNugent

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:

>>>>>> JNugent supposed :
>>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>>>>> offence was committed."
>>>>>>> What's to defend?
>>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
>> I think I said that, rather than implying it.
>
> You think wrong.

> The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
> article and said "What's to defend?".

That's the entirety of that comment.

There have been others.

Ian Smith

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:30:31 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> >>>>>> JNugent supposed :
> >>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>>>>>> offence was committed."
> >>>>>>> What's to defend?
> >>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
> >> I think I said that, rather than implying it.
> >
> > You think wrong.
>
> > The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
> > article and said "What's to defend?".
>
> That's the entirety of that comment.
> There have been others.

I see. I was supposed to take into consideration things you were
going to say at some time in the future, when composing my response.

As I said, I think you really ought to be arguing with yourself - the
rest of us just can't keep up. Cheerio.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|